Re: [Paddlewise] Skinboats of Greenland

John wrote:

Matt wrote;
>> That all said, I think John is wrong when he implies that aesthetics may
have >been as important as function in determining the shape of an Eskimo
kayak."<<

John wrote:
>I said " It seems reasonable that the Inuit  had  aesthetic values that
they
expressed in the objects they made.  It would  seem likely that they might
have shaped their end profiles etc. with an eye  towards what "looked
attractive" just like  boat builders around the world  have done for
centuries."

This is a far cry from "...that aesthetics may have been as important as
function in determining the shape of an Eskimo kayak."

I "implied" nothing (imply - "To involve by logical necessity") and did not
and have not at any time said that aesthetics "...may have been as important
as function". In fact, I rarely use the verb "to be" at all any more. I do
not know to what degree aesthetics, function, experimentation, tradition, or
superstition played in the Inuit builder's design of a specific boat and I
rather doubt that Matt  knows either. Ship designers have, for centuries
melded their aesthetic values with functionality to varying degrees and I
speculated that the Inuit did the same. I made no reference to the degree to
which they applied either aspect.

To emphasize the speculative nature of my comments I used the words "seems"
and "might".  Looking up the words "Seem" and "May" in a dictionary may help
clarify this further.<<

No matter how many qualifiers he used, in reading John's original text (that
I have included at the end of this post for reference) it seems pretty clear
to me that without coming right out and saying so, John is making arguments
to cast a "reasonable doubt" in the jurors minds as to the primacy of
function in the Eskimo designs (most specifically where it concerns overhang
at the bow). I looks to me that John wanted to at the very least, to cast
doubt in particular on the "common knowledge" that overhanging bows have
some function in making a kayak seaworthy (as exampled in many folks minds
by looking to those with the longest history of kayak design). To me the
logical conclusion is implied (but never actually stated) and qualified
leaving lots of wiggle room for an escape if an attempt is made to pin him
down.
Could there be some reason why John might have "a bee in his bonnet" about
this subject? Could it be that John has to regularly face this "Eskimo bows"
objection while trying to sell his designs? Designs, where a major big deal
is made in the advertising to show they have some of the least overhang in
the industry (complete with a table showing how many other kayaks just don't
measure up in this supposedly important area). The table is at
http://www.qcckayaks.com/howlong.htm . I'd like to see the numbers on all
the PWS kayaks such as the PWS Seal to see if they might knock QCC out of
first place on this list because PWS's Lee Moyer is the another kayak
designer that shares John's design philosophy regarding overhangs.
Couldn't casting doubt on some of the "common knowledge" that your design
philosophy doesn't agree with be considered a form of advertising (if ever
so subtle)? I think subtle suggestions may be the best form of advertising
because it slips into ones mind so unnoticed that one may think it was
actually ones own idea.
In my response I could have called a spade a spade and pointed out that
there should probably have been a disclosure included when one is making an
argument that favors ones own business interests. But the offense was subtle
and I felt any rebuke I made should be subtle as well.  Did anyone else
catch the rebuke but John? I was very careful to disclose my "axe to grind"
in my response and subtly (I thought) mentioned his undisclosed ax. I
figured why overreact and bludgeon a small offense with a club, even if you
are dead right you come off as hostile and overreacting. From the response
from John it looks to me that I hit a raw nerve. I wish he had let it lay
saving me the trouble of having to defend myself here.
There is a common defense mechanism known in psychology as "projection". It
basically consists of accusing the other party of what it is you have been
doing yourself. Projecting, as it were, your own secret offense on to the
other person and accusing them of it.

Back to what John wrote:
>>I find it amusing that Matt has managed to segue this discussion about
Inuit
boats into a commentary on his boats and his designs. One has to give credit
when appropriate. Matt rarely misses an opportunity to promote his boats.
What a persistent salesman!<<


I would like to point out that I did not bring up the subject of bow
overhang. John ran with Chuck's point and I think masterfully guided it down
to a specific example that is, coincidentally, one of the most obvious areas
where his designs differ from most other kayak designs, bow overhang. Did
anyone else see this as a subtle but effective form of advertising, like I
did?
Personally, I have no objections to designers or anyone else with a kayak
related "axe to grind" saying exactly what's on their mind (at least as long
as they stick to logical (or illogical) arguments and avoid the
repetitiveness, name calling and viciousness that barred sp*ns*n man from
this group). Given the rules and ethics of this group I think the terms
"self promotion" and "persistent salesman" might qualify as name calling
here.
If the sense of the group is that I was out of line with what I said in my
post (or this one) I will happily and voluntarily exile myself from this
group, no hard feelings, I spend way too much time in front of a keyboard as
it is. Please let me know how you feel, either publicly or privately.

John again:

>>I would dearly love to participate further in this delightful discussion
but
regrettably duty calls. I leave on a week long trip this morning and will
not have access to a computer. If you carry on without me please try to read
the lines carefully, stay on topic and try to leave the self promotion to
your e-mail signature and your web sites. ;-)
Cheers,
John Winters<<

I might add to what John said, that when there is a possible agenda or
conflict of interest that it should be clearly stated, especially by those
of us who could conceivably be biased for commercial reasons. Yes, read the
lines carefully but when one of us with commercial interests is writing,
reading between the lines might not be a bad idea either.
Even with the best of intentions it is easy to get caught up in discussions
one knows a lot about because it is our every day conversation (or a regular
sales pitch) for us. It is obvious that a designer is not likely to have a
high opinion of something that is the opposite in design than how he thinks
it should be. If paddlewisers can't make the points they want to in areas
that they know best (because they follow their own beliefs in the designing
they do, they really can't help but be promoting their designs if they argue
what they believe) I think this group will be the poorer for it.

What follows is John's response to Chuck's post that I believe started this
thread:


Chuck wrote;
>
> Often the Greenland kayak and the baidarka are represented as being the
> perfect culmination of centuries, if not millennia, of evolution. What I
> get from reading this book is that the Greenland kayak (and likely the
> baidarka, as well) was constantly changing to meet changing conditions,
and
> that there never was an ideal kayak, whether traditional or modern. In
> fact, what we consider to be a "traditional" Greenland kayak is partly a
> result of the Greenlanders' access to modern tools and lumber over the
last
> 200 years, one of the results of which was a gradual reduction in the
> number of deck beams and a consequent lightening of the boat.
>

John responded:

Chuck brings up an interesting point and one that I believe gets overlooked.
In my studies of traditional boats I could find nothing that indicated a
gradual development of form toward a more perfect boat. Beyond general
similarities (single chine, multi-chine, etc.) the boats had few
similarities.

One could argue that their shapes derived from adapting to specific uses but
this constitutes and "argument from ignorance" since we have no way of
knowing if these shapes solved a specific problem through intent or resulted
from good luck. The absence of a written record doesn't allow much more than
speculation.

One of the things that puzzles me throughout much of what I have read and
heard about traditional boats has to do with the insistence that the Inuit
usually had a practical reason (performance related) for any characteristic.
I would suggest something different.  It seems reasonable that the Inuit had
aesthetic values that they expressed in the objects they made.  It would
seem likely that they might have shaped their end profiles etc. with an eye
towards what "looked attractive" just like  boat builders around the world
have done for centuries.

In any case, Peterson's observation that the high bows evolved to assist in
getting up on the ice and then went away to allow for the gun certainly
makes one wonder about the validity of claims that the upturned bows came
about for improved seaworthiness and why the form persists in modern boats.
Cheers,
John Winters<<<

To me this sure seems to imply that aesthetics might be at least as
important as function to the Eskimo designers, especially in bow design. The
advertising aspect may not have been intentional at all. I can certainly see
how a designer whose kayaks fly in the face of Eskimo designs may need a
logical explaination (if only for their own mind) for why that is so.
Matt Broze
http://www.marinerkayaks.com


***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not
to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************